Talk:List of queercore bands
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| List | This page is a list and does not require a rating. |
See Talk:Queercore
Contents |
[edit] random talk
Ok, seriously... wtf is the "Gay and lesbian establishment"? Ric | opiaterein 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Who the hell put ray mears, and it's ray mears, not ray mears thrash (i'm in it)on there, not that we mind,but where the hell did you hear about us? uglyyou
[edit] Inclusion guidelines
According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) "...each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article..." so I'm removing red links. Here is the article with the links intact, if a prospective article meets the inclusion guidelines for bands then create the article first and then list it here. - 152.91.9.144 00:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Inclusion guidelines
Acoording to Wikipedia:Lists, "each entry on the list should IDEALLY have a Wikipedia article...". It would be nice to think that every band on this list could have had a Wikipedia entry. However, we are talking about a list of Queercore bands, a movement that will not find acceptance with a majority of people, nor have the same chance to gain the kind of widespread attention that other bands have. This list was an important documentation of a subcultural phenomena that exists far outside the mainstream. To apply the same standards to such subcultural movements such as queercore as you would to Top 40 music, or any other entertainment disseminated from the dominant culture, will result in an encyclopedia that effectively eliminates evidence of dissent from that culture.In my view the documentation of such dissent, such as a complete list of queercore bands, is vital to a true, encyclopedic documentation of culture as a whole. Therefore, I will attempt to replace the red links in the hopes that each of these bands will one day be recognized for their unique contribution. - Intheshadows 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Err, that's really not going to work. I understand your viewpoint, but once you start making "special pleadings" for some underrepresented subgroup you're violating arguably the most important tenent in Wikipedia: Freedom from bias. I'm going to, with some regret, roll back the changes. - 152.91.9.144 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Make that "all the changes" as these were myspace/geocities/etc bands. - 152.91.9.144 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the "regret". Understandably, if I now start to eliminate most the the Wikipedia articles in the Gay and lesbian sections, since they only affect 10% of the population, that will be regretable as well, I suppose? While we're at it, why not remove all references to "Riot Grrrl", since this was just a subgroup of punk. In fact why not eliminate all articles to do with feminism, since this doesn't really interest that many people does it? Or anything to do with 'underground' culture? Art movements such as Dada surely aren't of interest to the average person, are they? And why would events or movements in smaller, less significant, underrepresented countries be of any interest to anyone in the U.S. of A.? No, Wikipedia should surely confine itself to articles about television shows, when it comes to culture. It should confine its articles about music to only those bands who reached #1 on the Billboard charts. It should confine itself to articles that truly reflect it's underpinnings: culture that makes money. Top grossing movies, television, sports and bands like The Beatles. Your bias is based on prioritizing mass ( or 'pop', as in 'popular') culture, and in mass culture all that is important is sales. If there is an article about Queercore, then there should be a list of Queercore bands, since this is, in part, a movement involving music. It may not be your culture and it may not be important to you and you may not think it influential or notable, but it is not "some underrepresented subgroup", a comment that betrays your contempt.
Intheshadows 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Administrator comment
I'm going to weigh in here for a second as an administrator: the full sentence in question states that "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." In other words, 152 is misinterpreting the actual policy. We do not have a requirement that article redlinks must necessarily be removed from lists; for one thing, article redlinks are a helpful way to keep track of incomplete topics. At the same time, I can certainly understand the desire to keep lists looking clean and complete; I know some people feel that it reflects badly on Wikipedia to have a list with a lot of redlinks in it. But simply excluding redlinks from a list and then providing a link to the diff isn't the way to handle this.
As for notability, WP:MUSIC also states that a band can be notable enough for an encyclopedia article if they're considered a major representative of their genre, regardless of mainstream chart sales criteria. It's certainly possible that some of the redlink bands here aren't really sufficiently notable for an article, but it's also unquestionably true that some of them are notable enough. Myspace or Geocities are not automatically proof of non-notability, either — Madonna has a Myspace profile, for heaven's sake. If they're the only links that can be provided to testify to a band's existence, then the band probably isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, but having a Myspace profile isn't proof by itself that a band isn't notable.
So in the meantime, here's the bottom line: I'm reverting the list back to the version that included the redlinked bands. 152, if you still feel so strongly that they shouldn't be there that you're willing to override an administrator's decision and thereby risk provoking the wrath of a thousand angry firebreathing Wikigeeks, then you're welcome to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board, create a queercore bands subpage in the missing articles section, and move the redlinked bands to that page — but be aware that as things stand, there is no policy stating that the redlinks can't actually stay in the current list, and you absolutely cannot just post a link to the diff instead.
I'd also strongly recommend that the anon editor register a username; speaking as an administrator I get highly suspicious when an anonymous IP number goes after anything on Wikipedia with an aggressive agenda.
At the same time, I would also recommend, if possible, that Shadows should give a quick once-over to some of the names in the list. There's no question in my mind that somewhere-between-some-and-most of them are notable enough to be here (nobody who knows the first thing about queercore could possibly doubt the notability of Glen Meadmore or Skinjobs, for just two examples), but I'm not entirely convinced that they all belong here at this point. Linking to a Myspace page is perfectly fine if that's the most suitable webpage for a band, but 152 does have a partially valid point in that a band probably isn't notable enough if Myspace is the only thing there is on the web about a particular band. If a band's been reviewed in Holy Titclamps or another important queercore zine, for instance, then it's fine to be here. If a websearch is able to provide independent confirmation that a band is considered important in the queercore scene, then it's fine to be here. If they get a reasonably large number of webhits, then they're fine. But a band probably shouldn't be here if the only proof of relevance you can find is the presence of the word "queercore" in their Myspace self-description, because Wikipedia's job isn't necessarily to be a comprehensive directory. Bearcat 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
